New ELO point system

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minrat View Post
In terms of actual feedback: the system we have now is good. There is lots of maths behind it. The higher the average rating of the opposing team in reference to your own, the more rating you get for a win. The higher your teams average rating, the less you get.

K/D/A is not an accurate representation of skill. Supports are supposed to sacrifice themselves to save their carries-this does not do that.

Surrendering should not punish you-that is not the point of surrendering. When more than 70% of the team wants to surrender, it is granted as it has been seen as a loss and time is saved. therefore there should be no penalty. Tower kills also should not matter-the only thing that determines whether you win or lose is the nexus. this means that killing the nexus should be the only thing that gets you Elo.

Your reasons are admirable, but the only way to accurately determine an appropriate rating is more than 500 games played with focus on nexus kills and opposing Elo.

EDIT:Having read some of the other criticism and your response-if you get criticism, use it constructively. all you have done is say something along the lines of 'no-I've already covered that' When in fact you haven't covered it properly-otherwise we would not telling you again.
I understand that part of the system is rating based but i find that the match making system mixes it so that you gain and lose 11-12 every game! And that just doesn't seem like there is much of the "one team has a higher average" so 1 difference is all that i get for beating the better team?

While this may be true, in a solo que you will more often not find that a good player will come out on top with positive scores and lots of assists. But i do agree it is not everything which is why i put it at less then half a point per assist.

The reason i put in 1 loss for surrender, is that it is not that much in a losing game. But some people surrender because 1 player is doing badly even though their team wins team fights. Like i said in one of my comments i have seen so many games turn around when one team is trying to surrender.

I agree that 500 games is appropriate, but that is a lot of time and effort put in. The casuals who are in Elo hell need a system that will also coordinate well with the all-day gamers. At the same time i think that if riot allowed players in after X amount of normals and handed them an ELO appropriate to X number of games won/lost it would help move Elo hell down to below 900. But players are clearly against putting in any sort of fix it for ENTERING ranked. So i will leave it alone.

And to your edit, maybe but some of the comments are blatently obvious that they did not read there are caps "Omg i lost 26 Elo wtf" or that "everyone will try and KS and not try for assists because they give nothing". so yes i agree with you i did that, not all of them are "unanswered". Also i totally just "i've already..." to you lol.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaironLocke View Post
Thinking...thinking...sounds pretty good. The glaring issue is of course with supports. Now, A good support should have 20+ assists in a game and a low amount of deaths so I am not sure if peoepl have a legitimate claim there. The issue is people will be trying for assists, lots. Hitting everyone twice in winnign matches instead of focusing down like you are supposed to. Also, assists arent a very good meter of anything. Amumu gets off a good ult resulting in an ace. Four maybe five assists. He gets +2 for a good ult? Any aoe ult really. Or any AOE for that matter. But I like that peopel talk about the Elo issue. Definitely not a good descriptor when it comes to skill. Its all just win %. While at the same tiem you multiply that by how much you play. So, someone could have a 70% win ratio adn be lower than someone with a 51% Win ratio who has played 12 times as many games. Moreover, the idea that you can place someone in elo after a few matches is absolutley ludicrous. How many summoners are screwed over into elo hell for a season every reset? Not fair ranking system.
While i agree that they may try to hit players for the assists, they should already be doing that. Hitting them 2 times won't give them 2 assists... And AoE ults are fight changers for a reason. But also if i take away assists because "they aren't a good meter for anything" how can i determine a good support from a bad one? or a good jungle getting his lanes fed rather than himself on a tanky champ like naut? Also with my system the 70% win should be lower if he has 12 times a few games. The player with 51% has worked his tail off to get where he is. Also i am not sure if you realize that if amumu ults he can die and only get 1.3 elo out of his ult. and maybe not even if the other team is stronger. But i like that you gave me feed back, and i will make some changes.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-30-2012

bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

7he White Guy

Member

08-30-2012

http://freeleaguecodes.com/ref?id=4vmzrt5sy5

just try this out you have to see it to believe it


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

09-01-2012

bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

09-08-2012

bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

09-08-2012

No. This is a bad idea. It's discussed over and over again and shot down over and over again for the same reason.

The only thing that matters is killing the enemy nexus (or forcing them to surrender). Your system takes value away from that. Nothing should take value away from killing the enemy nexus because remember, killing the enemy nexus is the only thing that matters.

Your system will encourage things like kill-stealing (like, really KSing, not what people QQ about all the time), or playing 2 turrets back just farming jungle mobs or something to avoid deaths when people are trying to max out their Elo gain on a win, or minimize their Elo loss on what the perceive as a sure loss.

If the Elo system didn't work, then players wouldn't absolutely crush games when they're playing well outside of their proper Elo.

Watch a stream of a high ranked player (like 2.4k+) playing on a smurf count. 1600-1699 Elo bracket? He crushes every single game. Heck, even a 1400 player will crush every game in the 1000-1099 bracket.

There's nothing wrong with the Elo system, and proposed changes like this do nothing but give players reasons to do selfish things that hurt their team's odds of killing the enemy nexus.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PureGG

Senior Member

09-08-2012

This is an excellent idea, but I feel you don't completely understand the roll of a support. I main support and as such I will get myself killed to save my adc from dying, and in turn this allows the adc to net more cs and maybe a kill, whereas if I were to lose elo for doing that I may stop doing so and let my adc die, and in turn he would lose out on that cs and the possibility of a kill.

Quote:
It is not their fault for being focused, but they could have built to prevent instant death.
As a support you don't build to prevent yourself from dying, you build to help out the team, and if that means a lack of armor or magic resist for an aura item, then that's what needs to be done.

But aside from that I think this is the most magnificent idea I've heard so far.. you have almost all of it planned out, and with a little revision I do see this as being a legitimate elo system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

09-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
No. This is a bad idea. It's discussed over and over again and shot down over and over again for the same reason.

The only thing that matters is killing the enemy nexus (or forcing them to surrender). Your system takes value away from that. Nothing should take value away from killing the enemy nexus because remember, killing the enemy nexus is the only thing that matters.

Your system will encourage things like kill-stealing (like, really KSing, not what people QQ about all the time), or playing 2 turrets back just farming jungle mobs or something to avoid deaths when people are trying to max out their Elo gain on a win, or minimize their Elo loss on what the perceive as a sure loss.

If the Elo system didn't work, then players wouldn't absolutely crush games when they're playing well outside of their proper Elo.

Watch a stream of a high ranked player (like 2.4k+) playing on a smurf count. 1600-1699 Elo bracket? He crushes every single game. Heck, even a 1400 player will crush every game in the 1000-1099 bracket.

There's nothing wrong with the Elo system, and proposed changes like this do nothing but give players reasons to do selfish things that hurt their team's odds of killing the enemy nexus.
So you say my system is bad, BUT then you bring up the fact that players who are not in their correct Elo (smurf account) and are dominating games. With my system they will be moved up into the appropriate bracket faster. Besides i bet you have lost a game you went 12-1-5 in and got mad. And while i do take away from killing the nexus i do not make it obsolete by letting both teams gain Elo in a game. My system is to better filter the players into their brackets even if they are getting the bad teams 9/10 times. Sorry that you don't like it but please do not tell me it sucks and telling me that now we can just farm their team and don't have to kill the nexus. Because that just isn't true, if you don't kill it fast as you can you can still lose the game. I have seen it happen too many times.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

King of Sin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

09-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PureGG View Post
This is an excellent idea, but I feel you don't completely understand the roll of a support. I main support and as such I will get myself killed to save my adc from dying, and in turn this allows the adc to net more cs and maybe a kill, whereas if I were to lose elo for doing that I may stop doing so and let my adc die, and in turn he would lose out on that cs and the possibility of a kill.

As a support you don't build to prevent yourself from dying, you build to help out the team, and if that means a lack of armor or magic resist for an aura item, then that's what needs to be done.

But aside from that I think this is the most magnificent idea I've heard so far.. you have almost all of it planned out, and with a little revision I do see this as being a legitimate elo system.
Glad you like it. I do the same thing as a support, but by the late game you should be getting more than 2 assists a death, which is what really matters. Also when i said build tanky i ment buy "Randuins omen" so that you can support, and not die in 1 shot from the AD carry. I didn't mean build all tanky and no support items.